In re Kurt H.

For
Petitioner: Karen A. Clark Department of Children Youth and
Families Karl D. Beauregard Court Appointed Special Advocate

For
Respondent: Catherine Gibran Office of the Public Defender

Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Flaherty, Robinson, and Indeglia,
JJ.

OPINION

Paul
A. Suttell Chief Justice

The
respondent, Eric H. (father or respondent), appeals from a
decree of neglect as to his son, Kurt H. (the child), entered
in the Family Court. The child came under the state's
care on October 6, 2014, after an alleged alcohol relapse by
the child's mother; at the time the respondent was
incarcerated at the Adult Correctional Institutions (ACI).
This case came before the Supreme Court pursuant to an order
directing the parties to appear and show cause why the issues
raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided. After
considering the parties' written and oral submissions and
reviewing the record, we conclude that cause has not been
shown and that this case may be decided without further
briefing or argument. For the reasons set forth in this
opinion, we affirm the decree of the Family Court.

At some
point after the child's birth in 2012 in Massachusetts,
the family became involved with the Massachusetts Department
of Social Services (DSS) for reasons that are not germane to
the issues currently on appeal. In June 2014, the family
moved to an apartment in Pawtucket. Shortly thereafter, DSS
contacted the Rhode Island Department of Children, Youth, and
Families (DCYF) to report that the family had relocated. In
late July 2014, respondent was arrested and held on a charge
of conspiracy to violate the controlled substances law; he
subsequently pled to the charge and was sentenced to eighteen
months at the ACI.

After
respondent's arrest and detention, the mother "began
working" with the Family Care Community Partnership
(FCCP). On October 6, 2014, the mother admitted to a FCCP
agent that she had relapsed and had been drinking for several
days, and that she would be evicted on October 18, 2014.
Consequently, a DCYF Child Protective Investigator (CPI)
"responded to the home." In an affidavit, the CPI
attested that the mother, when interviewed at her home, began
"screaming and swearing[, ] saying [that] she was going
to drink a bottle of alcohol and kill herself." The CPI
described the mother as "belligerent" and
"erratic" during this visit. The child was placed
in the temporary custody of DCYF, and, on the following day,
DCYF filed an ex parte petition alleging that the
child was neglected. On January 22, 2015, the petition was
amended to include an allegation of dependency, an allegation
to which the mother pled.

The
petition came before the Family Court for trial as to father
on May 12, 2015. Before trial commenced, respondent stated
that he did not "feel" he could admit to neglect
because, although he was incarcerated when the child was
removed, it was the mother's relapse that caused the
child to come into the state's care. The respondent
indicated that, in light of the fact that the mother had pled
to dependency, he should be permitted to do so as well. The
trial justice disagreed, and reminded respondent that someone
incarcerated at the ACI is "not in a position to take
care of [a] child." Accordingly, the trial began and
respondent was the only witness to testify.

At
trial, respondent testified that he had supported his family
financially. Specifically, respondent testified that, at the
time he was incarcerated, he left the apartment "paid
for, food and pantry * * * fully stocked, diapers * * * [and]
had money coming in that [he] allowed [the mother] to spend
on herself and the child."[2] The respondent testified that the
"money coming in" was from jobs he had completed
before being incarcerated and money owed to him, and that he
cashed in an IRA worth $6, 000 to ensure that the mother and
child "had everything they needed."

At the
conclusion of the testimony, the trial justice rendered a
bench decision, in which she found by clear and convincing
evidence that respondent was unable to care for the child due
to his confinement in the ACI, and that respondent knew that
the mother had alcohol problems when he left the child in her
custody. The trial justice also found that respondent
neglected the child by failing "to provide the child
with a minimum degree of care, supervision or guardianship,
and [that] the child [was] without proper parental care and
supervision." The Family Court therefore ordered the
child "committed to the care, custody and control of
...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.